Action Alert #3

ACTION ALERT #3
September 24, 2002
Published by the National Organizing Department, Communist Party USA

In this ACTION ALERT:

• Stop Bush's resolution: What you can do (Includes special coverage in the People's Weekly World)


• Text of Congressional resolution introduced by Rep. Barbara Lee


• Statement from Peace Action


• Other actions


• FYI: Sen. Byrd opposes war (Charlotte Gazette article)


• Club initiative



It is urgent that Congress receive messages of opposition to President Bush's resolution on Iraq. Leaders from both parties have said they will pass Bush's bill, or one very like it, within the next two weeks. Immediate pressure on your representatives, in whatever form, can stop this outrageous resolution. The following contains suggestions and tools for getting your message across.

1. Stop the Bush Resolution – Get Through to Congress

Last week President Bush sent the text of a resolution up to the Hill for their rubber stamp of approval. If Bush gets his blank check, he will have his war.
THIS IS THE MOMENT FOR ACTION. All it takes is a quick phone call, although a fax is better. E-mail is not great, but you can do it. Tell them to say "No" to Bush's blank-check request.

MOST URGENTLY, ask them to become a co-sponsor of the alternative resolution that Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) has introduced in Congress (see below).
Also, urge your representatives to defer a vote, but, if one comes up, to vote "no." Ask them to speak out opposing the war against Iraq. Tell them to give peace a chance through the United Nations inspectors.

Call or e-mail your family and friends and get at least five people to also contact their senators and members of Congress. Letters to the editor are also very urgent and useful at this time – even if they aren’t printed (see sample below).

People’s Weekly World special coverage: This week’s PWW will feature special coverage on the efforts to stop the United States from going to war with Iraq. Plan special distributions of this issue (Sept. 28), which will include a CPUSA statement on the crisis, an article by Tim Wheeler on the battle in Congress, response from various U.S. peace groups (by Judith Le Blanc) and a centerspread on globalization and the war drive.

ORDER TODAY: Call the PWW at (212) 924-2523 or e-mail rgiovanoni@pww.org no later than Wed., Sept. 25 to order extra bundles or to "special order" a bundle, if you’ve never ordered before.

2. Alternative Resolution (H. Con. Res. 473)

On Sept. 19 Rep. Barbara Lee (for herself and Reps. Clayton, Rivers, Hinchey, Jackson of Illinois, McDermott, Kucinich, McKinney, Owens, Kilpatrick, Watson (Calif.), Rush, Christensen, Hilliard, Clay, Stark, Farr (Calif.), Kaptur, Baldwin, Filner, Woolsey, Clyburn, Davis (Illinois), Brown (Fla.), Serrano, Solis, and Conyers) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the committee on international relations:

H. Con. Res. 473: Expressing the sense of Congress with respect to the importance of the U.S. working through the UN to assure Iraq's compliance with UN Security Council resolutions and advance peace and security in the Persian Gulf region:

"Whereas on April 6, 1991, during the Persian Gulf War, Iraq accepted the provisions of UN Security Council Resolution 687 (April 3, 1991) bringing a formal cease-fire into effect;

Whereas, in accordance with Security Council Resolution 687, Iraq unconditionally accepted the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless of "all chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities related thereto," and "all ballistic missiles with a range greater than 100 and 50 kilometers, and related major parts and repair and production facilities";

Whereas, in accordance with Security Council Resolution 687, Iraq unconditionally agreed not to acquire or develop any nuclear weapons, nuclear-weapons-usable material, nuclear-related subsystems or components, or nuclear-related research, development, support, or manufacturing facilities;

Whereas Security Council Resolution 687 calls for the creation of a UN special commission to "carry out immediate on-site inspection of Iraq’s biological, chemical, and missile capabilities" and to assist and cooperate with the International Atomic Energy Agency in carrying out the "destruction, removal or rendering harmless" of all nuclear-related items and in developing a plan for the ongoing monitoring and verification of Iraq's compliance;

Whereas UN weapons inspectors (UNSCOM) between 1991 and 1998 successfully uncovered and destroyed large stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and production facilities, nuclear weapons research and development facilities, and Scud missiles, despite the fact that the Government of Iraq sought to obstruct their work in numerous ways;

Whereas in 1998, UNSCOM weapons inspectors were withdrawn from Iraq and have not returned since;

Whereas Iraq is not in compliance with UN Security Council Resolution 687, UN Security Council Resolution 1154, and additional UN resolutions on inspections, and this noncompliance violates international law and Iraq's cease-fire obligations and potentially endangers U.S. and regional security interests;

Whereas the true extent of Iraq's continued development of weapons of mass destruction and the threat posed by such development to the U.S. and allies in the region are unknown and cannot be known without inspections;

Whereas the UN was established for the purpose of preventing war and resolving disputes between nations through peaceful means, including "by negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional arrangements, or other peaceful means";

Whereas the UN remains seized of this matter;

Whereas the President has called upon the UN to take responsibility to assure that Iraq fulfills its obligations to the UN under existing UN Security Council resolutions;
Whereas war with Iraq would place the lives of tens of thousands of people at risk, including members of the U.S. armed forces, Iraqi civilian non-combatants, and civilian populations in neighboring countries;

Whereas unilateral U.S. military action against Iraq may undermine cooperative international efforts to reduce international terrorism and to bring to justice those responsible for the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001;

Whereas unilateral U.S. military action against Iraq may also undermine U.S. diplomatic relations with countries throughout the Arab and Muslim world and with many other allies;

Whereas a preemptive unilateral U.S. first strike could both set a dangerous international precedent and significantly weaken the UN as an institution; and
Whereas the short-term and long-term costs of unilateral U.S. military action against Iraq and subsequent occupation may be significant in terms of U.S. casualties, the cost to the U.S. treasury, and harm to U.S. diplomatic relations with other countries:

Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring That the U.S. should work through the UN to seek to resolve the matter of ensuring that Iraq is not developing weapons of mass destruction, through mechanisms such as the resumption of weapons inspections, negotiation, inquiry, mediation, regional arrangements, and other peaceful means.

3. Peace Action Calls for Creative Protests

Thursday, Sept. 26: Take action outside Congressional homes or offices.

"With a vote on attacking Iraq coming as soon as the end of next week, Peace Action is calling for a day of ‘Wake-Up Call’ actions at Congressional homes and offices across the country.

"Literally, we want you to wake up your elected officials in the early morning hours at their homes. We are particularly interested in targeting Democrats, as they have been caving into the demands of the White House. Certainly Republicans are fair targets too.

"The basic setup, as borrowed from Global Exchange: ‘Carrying bed sheets and pillow cases reading Americans Want Peace: Support UN Inspectors, Not Bush War, the peaceful protesters will arrive with coffee, bagels, and pots and pans to help "wake up" Sen. Daschle and other congressional Democrats to the reality that large sectors of the American public do not support a U.S. war against Iraq. They will ask that the Senator come out and meet with them for an honest exchange of views over breakfast. The protesters are urging that Congress delay a vote giving President Bush the power to wage war and instead strongly back the unfettered return of UN inspectors to Iraq.’

"This was the action last Friday morning in DC in front of Sen. Daschle’s house. Peace Action is taking the idea and expanding it to the national level."

4. Other Actions:

Sept. 29-30 in DC: non-violent march against war.We know this is short notice and it may be impossible for many of you to go to Washington Sept. 29, but see what is possible. EAST COAST: If you can help with the PWW, please call ASAP (212- 989-4994 ext. 231). We will be sending a delegation from here.

Non-violent march against war on Iraq Sun., Sept. 29 in Washington DC: 2:00 pm: Gather at Dupont Circle (Mass. & Conn. Aves, NW). The march will set off at 2:30 pm, stopping at key embassies to deliver messages of peace. The march will end with a rally outside Vice President Dick Cheney's house at the Naval Observatory, 3400 Mass. Ave NW. Contact: The National Network to End the War Against Iraq: 301-270-4858. (newai@usa.com, www.endthewar.org)
Download the flyer on line at: www.peace-action.org/march.pdf

Emergency Congressional Education Day Monday, Sept. 30: Washington, DC 8-11 am, Methodist Building, 100 Maryland Ave. Press Congress to vote against war on Iraq. Lobby preparation and training starting at 8 am, lobbying from 11 am. Contact the Education for Peace in Iraq Center 202-543-6176 (epicenter@igc.org)

Oct. 7 nationwide events. The Oct. 7 actions are extremely important because they are local actions. Where possible, hook up groups you work to peace groups planning the Oct. 7 action in your area or to initiate an action where none are planned.

Monday, Oct. 7: Oppose the War on Iraq. The Iraq Pledge of Resistance – a nationwide campaign sponsored by Education for Peace in Iraq Center, Fellowship of Reconciliation, Global Exchange, Interfaith Network of Concern for the People in Iraq, Lutheran Peace Fellowship, National Network to End the War Against Iraq, Pax Christi USA, Peace Action, Resource Center for Nonviolence, Voices in the Wilderness, and War Resisters League – is calling for all local and regional organizations to make Monday, Oct. 7 a day of protest against the war in Iraq.

It is likely that Congress will vote on a war resolution the first week of October, so Monday, Oct. 7 will be an ideal date and opportunity to hold them accountable – and to show that the citizens of this country, unlike our Congress, will not be cowed into supporting this immoral and illegal war. Given the circumstances, we recommend Congressional offices and/or federal buildings as appropriate locations for your actions and protests.5. FYI: War plans a cover-up, Sen. Byrd says.

The following article appeared in the Sept. 21 issue of the Charleston Gazette:

By Paul J. Nyden
STAFF WRITER

Sen. Robert C. Byrd, D-W.Va., said President Bush’s plans to invade Iraq are a conscious effort to distract public attention from growing problems at home.
"This administration, all of a sudden, wants to go to war with Iraq," Byrd said. "The [political] polls are dropping, the domestic situation has problems .... So all of a sudden we have this war talk, war fervor, the bugles of war, drums of war, clouds of war.

"Don't tell me that things suddenly went wrong. Back in August, the president had no plans .... Then all of a sudden this country is going to war," Byrd told the Senate on Friday.
"Are politicians talking about the domestic situation, the stock market, weaknesses in the economy, jobs that are being lost, housing problems? No."

Byrd warned of another Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. Passed on Aug. 7, 1964, that resolution handed President Lyndon Johnson broad powers to escalate the war in Vietnam, a conflict that cost 58,202 American lives and millions of Asian lives.

"Congress will be putting itself on the sidelines," Byrd told the Senate. "Nothing would please this president more than having such a blank check handed to him."
Byrd said his belief in the Constitution will prevent him from voting for Bush's war resolution. "But I am finding that the Constitution is irrelevant to people of this administration."

Sens. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., and Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., both praised Byrd after he spoke. "It is the height of patriotism to ask such hard questions," Clinton said. "No one exemplifies that more than the senior senator from West Virginia."

Byrd said, "Before the nation is committed to war, before we send our sons and daughters to battle in faraway lands, there are critical questions that must be asked. To date, the answers from the administration have been less than satisfying."

Byrd repeatedly said Bush has failed to give members of Congress any evidence about any immediate danger from Iraq. Byrd also criticized his speech to the United Nations.
"Instead of offering compelling evidence that the Iraqi regime had taken steps to advance its weapons program, the president offered the U.N. more of a warning than an appeal for support.

"Instead of using the forum of the U.N. General Assembly to offer evidence and proof of his claims, the president basically told the nations of the world that you are either with me, or against me," Byrd said.

"We must not be hell-bent on an invasion until we have exhausted every other possible option to assess and eliminate Iraq's supposed weapons of mass destruction program. We must not act alone. We must have the support of the world."

Byrd said Congress needs solid evidence and answers to several specific questions, including

* Does Saddam Hussein pose an imminent threat to the U.S.?
* Should the United States act alone?
* What would be the repercussions in the Middle East and around the globe?
* How many civilians would die in Iraq? * How many American forces would be involved?
* How do we afford this war?
* Will the U.S. respond with nuclear weapons if Saddam Hussein uses chemical or biological weapons against U.S. soldiers?
* Does the U.S. have enough military and intelligence resources to fight wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, while mobilizing resources to prevent attacks on our own shores?

Byrd said the proposed resolution Bush sent Congress on Thursday would be the "broadest possible grant of war powers to any president in the history of our Republic. The resolution is a direct insult and an affront to the powers given to Congress."

Byrd also criticized Bush's request for power to carry out "pre-emptive attacks" and send troops to Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, the West Bank and anywhere else in the Middle East.

"I cannot believe the gall and the arrogance of the White House in requesting such a broad grant of war powers," Byrd said. "This is the worst kind of election-year politics."

© Copyright 2002 The Charleston Gazette6. Club Action

The following is the text of a letter one Brooklyn, N.Y. club sent to friends and contacts to urge them to take action to stop the war drive. Your club can do something similar. This same club also had its letters to the editor printed in several local newspapers:

Dear Friend,

These are perilous days. The Bush Administration is hell-bent on invading and conquering Iraq. The excuse is that Saddam Hussein may have or is seeking weapons of mass destruction and he is an "evil man." The U.S. does not claim evidence that Hussein is planning to attack us or anyone else. It is enough that he may someday plan to attack someone.

On Sept. 20, President Bush sent a document to Congress that informs the Congress of "The National Security Strategy of the United States." The document proclaims the USA's overwhelming military superiority over all other countries or groups of countries and that we will never allow any country to even approach our military capacity even if we have to attack them pre-emptively and unilaterally to prevent such an occurrence. It also proclaims the U.S. will use all measures – military, diplomatic, economic, ideological, every international institution – to uphold throughout the world our values of "freedom", a "free market economy," and "free trade."

This document in effect claims the right of the U.S. to dictate to the rest of the world for ever. It substitutes survival of the strongest, chaos, unilateralism and extreme nationalism for international law. It assures our country will become the most feared and hated country of all times, should we and the rest of the world survive such recklessness.

Such a policy helps explain why Bush wants to attack Iraq in the January-February time frame. It is not only saber-rattling to distract the people of our country from the economy, corporate corruption, increased racist profiling, growing limitations of constitutional rights, and to win the Nov. 5 elections, keeping control of the House and retaking the Senate, etc. It is not only to warn others not to challenge U.S. transnational control of Mideast oil. It is also to be the first war to demonstrate the U.S. will attack pre-emptively (with no concrete threat to it) with overwhelming force, unilaterally anywhere in the world it deems its interests threatened, however remotely.

It is urgent that the drive to attack Iraq be slowed and then defeated. Within little over a week, the Congress most likely will authorize Bush to use force against Iraq. Despite the unease of the public shown in the polls and that a great many Democrats as well as some Republicans have considerable reservation, the Democratic Party leadership has wrongly decided that the only way to return to the domestic issues and win the elections, is to vote right away for authorization and "get it out of the way." They are simply negotiating to change the wording of the Bush proposal to cover only Iraq, rather than the entire Mideast, as it now reads.

At least 28 members of Congress, led by Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) and Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), and chair of the Progressive Caucus in Congress, have introduced an alternative Resolution, calling for a "peaceful solution" to the Iraqi situation. Pressure is needed right away on Senators and your member of Congress to support this alternative Resolution.